Radar Detector

I think that we can't really evaluate whether trading any player (not just Jones) is a good or bad idea until we know what we might be getting in return. The club would be irresponsible not to listen to offers on any player that came up in trade talks. However some of the inconsistencies in opinion on here frustrate me a little. We have two players on our list currently in our best 22 who are one paced, perceived to have average disposal and bleed for the club. Both have a 2nd placing in the B&F on their CV but one is 22 and the other 26. Can you pick which one people are advocating to trade and which one people are advocating for captain? Not saying either is necessarily right or wrong but the double standards surprise. And people are getting a bit ahead of themselves saying our flag winning midfield contains gysberts, tapscott, blease etc. They've played a collective total of three games.

I suspect I'll be in a very small minority here but I don't think we should really chase Pavlich at all. If he was two or three years younger sure, but despite the fact he is an outright star, I don't think it's the right time to be chasing a player of his age. The precedents for trades involving players of that quality suggest you need to trade seriously high picks plus a good young player. I would rather see us keep all our young potential stars (like Gysberts mentioned above) and aim to have as many players peaking at once as possible. Pavlich will be past his best by the time we're challenging for a flag and the sight of Morton, Gysberts, Tapscott or whoever tearing it up at another club would break my heart. Another couple of years sticking to the plan is important. Trading too early (for Judd) will come back to bite Carlton as they've already lost Kennedy and Judd's peaking now but they're still not serious contenders. Let's not trade for anyone that won't be at or near their peak when we're pushing for no. 13.

Jones finished equal 13th with Bartram. He was 24th on votes per game. Not sure that trading Jones is the right move just yet, especially when so much of our young midfield is unproven. Scully, Trengove and Jordie are the only ones who have really had any real exposure to the ones. Gysberts was awesome in his first two games but surely we should see a bit more of these kids before we move on a consistently good (if limited) player who is only 22! Plus every premiership team has a few grunt players like Jones. I think he'd thrive in a finals atmosphere.

McKenzie's top 10 finish shouldn't be overlooked too. Great effort for a young guy on the rookie list and really stiff not to get a rising star nom.

^ What he said I think the compensation for Bock was spot on. Port got over the odds for Krakouer. On Viney, there is plenty of time to resolve this issue if indeed Jack Viney is even worth selecting in a couple of years time - plenty can happen. Anyway, unless JV turns out to be a Scully or Trengove standout (which he might) then we will probably get a similarly talented player with a low teens pick anyway. Not too much lost given we would probably have to use our first round pick to select him. The days of selecting a G. Ablett or J. Brown with a pick in the 30s or 40s is past.

My thoughts exactly. At this stage, Jack would be unlikely to be one of the players GWS gives up whilst under contract - surely that provision is in place so they can offload the four 17yo they least want after seeing them first hand. Why waste this screening process on a kid they know they won't keep? Even if they did go down this path, another club might make a substantially better offer. To be honest, there's no sure fire recipe for Jack staying in Adelaide and if he really doesn't want to leave home, why risk being signed early by GWS? He'd be better off to just wait until the draft and hope he slides until the Crows' pick. The only certain outcomes he can hope for are F/S at the Demons or early signing by GWS. I'm not too concerned by this article. Seems like Adelaide grasping at a pretty short straw. Our main competition for Jack is (and always has been) GWS.

Pretty sure that was Mitch Clark from Brisbane?

Saw an article on the same website suggesting Mitch Brown hasn't confirmed his intentions (although he is contracted next year). Would probably be more interested in him. Is 21yo and could play key back for ten years, releasing Garland to play as the third tall.

Would be shocked if Gaff is around anywhere near pick 12.

The worst kept secret in football has now been announced.

I agree with the need to provide help to these kids, but surely it defeats the purpose of having a penalty after three strikes if the system is designed so that nobody ever reaches that point!! Or might the illusion of a punishment provide some level of deterrent that assists in the rehab? As someone completely unfamiliar with the causes or effects of addiction, I wouldn't have a clue...

Please take this with a grain of salt cos it's from Mark Robinson in the Hun today, but he suggests that once player hits 2 strikes and is placed in rehab or counselling, they are removed from the testing system whilst undergoing treatment. That would mean the only way a player would ever hit 3 strikes is if they're busted outside the testing system like Tuck (and Cousins for that matter). Not sure if it's true but it compromises the whole regime if it is.

The chances of another club chasing a 34yo mid are pretty much zero. He's not a Barry Hall type who will provide the last ingredient for a flag aspirant, most of the top 4 or 5 would consider their midfields a real strength. And I doubt Junior would put his hand up anyway.

Eventually it's the ability to turn draft picks (high or otherwise) into quality players that counts. Whilst we all hope (and probably expect) Scully, Trengove, Watts, Grimes, McKenzie etc. to be better than Cunnington, Ziebell, Bastinac, Wright, Anthony etc. there is no guarantee. The fact is they are both pretty promising young lists and until one or the other starts to convert their potential into bona fide results, we won't know. I agree we look well placed for the future but to blindly expect this to automatically translate into results is folly.

Jordie would have to be the unluckiest of all the eligible players given the consistent level he achieved for most of the season. Clearly suffered for not having one outrageously dominant performance. Still, as Brett Kirk and our own JMac have proved over long and successful careers, you don't need to have a profile to be a very valuable contributer. Congratulations Jordie on a great season. Bring on 2011.

Agree with this post completely. The issue is whether we trade for a mature big body or develop our own, either one currently on the list or through trading in a youngster. My preference is for the development path as we're more likely to end up with a player who can play a meaningful part in our future. It's probably slightly early to be plugging holes with stop-gap solutions when our best players are realistically at least a couple of years from their peak.

I find it hard to believe that after so many posts criticising the efforts of Miller, Newton, PJ etc that people are seriously advocating a Leigh Brown type coming to Melbourne. Just like Ashley Hansen and Cam Mooney in previous flag winning teams, he is an average tall who is made to look much better for the team around him. If Brad Miller had played at Collingwood he'd be looking the goods too. Trading for a middle age and middle of the road player just because he is big bodied is a mistake IMO and it's unlikely such a player would excel in our team at the moment anyway. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are actively trying to weed out players who will not form part of our premiership assault not add to them. We'd be better off chasing a Taylor Walker or similar who, if they get it right, will be on the field when we start winning finals, not in the stands.

Brad Green appears to be the standout and is really the only candidate who ticks all of the boxes. He's courageous, skillful, consistent, should easily command a place in our starting 22 for at least a few more years, is a polished media performer and is ultra-professional (and a great example to the youngsters in the team). Beamer, Flash and Rivers fall short in a couple of these areas each and Bruce probably is a bit closer to the end than Green. I for one don't think we need to appoint a young captain now, especially given the number of candidates is likely to be a lot healthier in a few years time with the likes of Grimes, Scully, Trengove and Watts all hopefully in the mix. I wouldn't rule Nathan Jones out either if he can consolidate his spot in the side. Right now, I would have Green as captain with Beamer, Bruce and Flash all joint VC.

Given we're still likely to finish somewhere near the bottom four, we may still have a pick in the top ten which could surely be used on a key forward. If any of the ?good" players you've listed does become available, they're likely to end up at GC17 anyway aren't they?

May be something to do with the fact that we also played a couple (Wonna, Cale and even Garland) who are still underdone?

Let's not forget that there's a split round coming in a few weeks time. I think Jamar will need a chop out against the Pies in round 12 and maybe the Blues in round 11. Against the Cats though, especially after a taxing game in Darwin and without two genuine opposition rucks, I think we could use an extra runner in our midfield rotations. Russian will have earnt his week off come round 13!

I expect the Watts vs Naitanui debate to rage for several more years but I agree with the majority of posters that Watts will eventually be the better player. Naitanui has the advantage, much like Daniel Rich, of a football-ready body and plenty of experience playing against men. What he lacks at this stage is the football smarts and elite skills. Watts is really still a work in progress too but has the athleticism, smarts and skills in spades. All we are waiting on is a few years of physical development which IMO is more likely than Naitanui becoming a truly silky, smart footballer. We have a beauty on our hands.

I suppose that's the upside of having a Pokies magnate as one of the club's biggest supporters... Would be nice for the MFC to get an armchair ride like that once in a while though...

This debate is quite interesting. Melbourne had 47 inside 50s to the Eagles' 59 and 5 marks inside 50 to 16. Probably could mount the argument both ways about the performance of the forwards but to me it was a reflection of the poor delivery the mids were providing on the day. Interestingly, it was the same inside 50 count as we had against the Roos, with the Hawthorn game (44) the only one worse - seems to support RR's view IMO. Also, I seem to recall Garland started his career at Melbourne as a forward but never really looked comfortable in the side until he shifted to defence. Not sure that I see him as the shotgun solution to our short term forward set-up that some believe.

Hi all - rookie poster here. Have been reading the posts for about a year or so and find the debate interesting reading. Good to know there are plenty of like mided supporters out there! I find the debate around Trengove v Morabito v Butcher etc. very interesting. Having not seen any of them live, so I have to defer to the experts on which is the most likely star of the trio (or indeed if there are others like Panos Jetta etc.). What I was wondering though, is whether or not it would be possible to pursuade one of the three or four top choices (e.g. Butcher) to only nominate for the PSD thereby enabling us to snare Scully, Trengove and Butcher? Probably a rule disallowing this - can someone inform?